State v. Boylan, 23741.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 23741.,23741. |
| Citation | 197 N.W. 281,158 Minn. 263 |
| Parties | STATE v. BOYLAN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, McLeod County; C. M. Tifft, Judge.
Arthur Boylan was convicted of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The evidence sustains the verdict finding the defendant guilty of selling intoxicating liquor.
Two witnesses purchased the liquor with money furnished by a peace officer. The object was to procure evidence upon which to found a prosecution for selling. Upon the evidence obtained the prosecution was conducted and conviction had. It is held that the act of selling was criminal and that the doctrine of entrapment is without application. Joseph P. O'Hara, of Glencoe, for appellant.
C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., Jas. E. Markham, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Wm. O. McNelly, Co. Atty., of Hutchinson, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
[1] 1. Two witnesses testify that they bought the liquor of the defendant. They are not contradicted. The evidence sustains the verdict. It need not be detailed. It is enough to say that if we correctly measure its force from the printed record the result should not have been different.
[2] 2. The defendant's claim that he was trapped into making the sale has no merit.
The doctrine of entrapment, relieving from acts in form criminal, has a legitimate though narrowly limited application in the criminal law. The thought at the basis of it is that officers of the law shall not incite crime to punish its perpetrator, shall not lead a man into crime, making him a criminal, merely to convict and punish him; or, when the offense involves the nonassent of the person wronged, that the acts of entrapment may constitute assent, and so negative crime. Clark & Marshall on Crimes, 222-228; 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, §§ 255-263; Clark, Crim. Law, 12; 1 Wharton, Crim. Law, § 387; 16 C. J. 88; 1 Brill, Cyc. Crim. Law, §§ 187-189; note, 18 A. L. R. 143, 146-192. But the discovery of crime and the procuring of evidence by deception is not prohibited. A trap may be set.
The two witnesses purchased the liquor with money furnished by a police officer. They were in search of evidence upon which to found a prosecution. All general sales are now prohibited. The purchaser is not an offender. It is difficult to conceive a genuine case of improperly trapping one into a sale. It would be unusual. There is none here. To enforce the laws against the sale of liquor there must be detective work and detective evidence. A sale may be solicited, and the seller be punished for making it. The law for this state is substantially settled against the application of the doctrine of entrapping in State v. Gibbs, 109 Minn. 247, 123 N. W. 810,25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449. There two police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Poague
...809.10 Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; State v. McCornish, 59 Utah 58, 201 P. 637.11 State v. Boylan, 158 Minn. 263, 197 N.W. 281; People v. Smith, 296 Mich. 176, 295 N.W. 605; State v. Gutilla, 94 Ohio App. 469, 116 N.E.2d 208; City of Duluth v. Verdi, ......
-
State v. Garcia
...its perpetrator, shall not lead a man into crime, making him a criminal, merely to convict and punish him ...." State v. Boylan , 158 Minn. 263, 197 N.W. 281, 281 (1924). The parties disagree about our standard of review of the district court’s entrapment decision. Garcia argues that we mus......
-
City of Bismarck v. Depriest, 20060070.
...he requested the sale of an intoxicant." Medley v. Maryville City Beer Bd., 726 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tenn.1987); see also State v. Boylan, 158 Minn. 263, 197 N.W. 281 (1924); State v. Parr, 129 Mont. 175, 283 P.2d 1086 [¶ 15] We affirm. [¶ 16] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, MARY MUEHLEN MARING, DANIEL ......
- Funkley v. Ridgway